• 92 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for jcramires
#1 Edited by JCRamires (19 posts) -

No one buys those games because of their singleplayer campaign, everyone is in it for the multiplayer, so I got a couple of questions.

If a company were to axe the singleplayer mode and still charge the full price, would you still buy the game?

Would you make a big deal out of it, even though that probably means that they didn't waste development time on a game nobody would play?

Edit: by full price I mean triple A game price.

Edit 2: I'm not talking about taking SP from every single FPS game, I'm talking about modern military shooters with focus on MP.

Avatar image for doobie
#2 Posted by doobie (612 posts) -

i bought quake 3 arena so, if it good sure... why not

Avatar image for lysergica33
#3 Posted by Lysergica33 (601 posts) -

I wouldn't personally. But if they sold the SP or MP sections at reduced prices I would probably take the plunge here and there. Especially for CoD. I still dig the bombastic, ridiculous SP campaigns they tend to have, but there's no way I want to pay full price for a 5 hour campaign. I would probably pay something like £15-20 for a well made 5-6 hour campaign sans MP.

I'm pretty bored of modern FPS though. If something like this were offered 4-5 years ago I'd have been much more enthusiastic about such an idea.

Avatar image for flarephoenix
#4 Posted by FlarePhoenix (430 posts) -

@JCRamires said:

No one buys those games because of their singleplayer campaign, everyone is in it for the multiplayer, so I got a couple of questions.

That's a pretty big assumption there.

Avatar image for jcramires
#5 Edited by JCRamires (19 posts) -

@doobie: How much did it cost back then?

Also, we didn't have a lot of those games years ago, now every single FPS game has a multiplayer mode.

@FlarePhoenix: Sure, some people get those games for the singleplayer campaign, but would you agree that they are a small percentage of the sales?

Avatar image for bog
#6 Posted by BoG (5390 posts) -

Considering that some amazing multiplayer-only FPS games exist and are free to play, no. I mean, TF2, there is an example. I've purchased multiplayer only games for less money (I recently bought Counter-Strike GO), but in this day and age, with so many fantastic games at killer prices, $60 games have to be pretty sweet in order for me to justify spending that much money.

Avatar image for mlarrabee
#7 Posted by mlarrabee (3867 posts) -

I played Modern Warfare 1 and 3 for the campaigns and didn't touch the multiplayers.

So nope.

Avatar image for phatmac
#8 Posted by Phatmac (5931 posts) -

I wouldn't but I'd buy games that are only multiplayer like TF2 and Killing floor at a lower cost.

Avatar image for ajamafalous
#9 Posted by ajamafalous (13529 posts) -

I don't buy any games at full price.
 
 
That being said, I don't care whether a multiplayer shooter has single player or not.

Avatar image for krazy_kyle
#10 Posted by krazy_kyle (740 posts) -

I generally dont enjoy multiplayer FPS games except for a select few such as Counter strike and the upcoming Black ops 2. There are FPS games that have good single player campaigns such as Borderlands 2 and hopefully the upcoming Colonial marines game. I just think multiplayer FPS is getting boring for me. I also forgot halo 4, hopefully the multiplayer in that will be interesting but i will probably get bored eventually, Im only getting it for the campain really.

Avatar image for casper_
#11 Posted by casper_ (915 posts) -

i bought tribes back in the day so i guess it depends on the game.

probably not though

Avatar image for ajayraz
#12 Posted by AjayRaz (12813 posts) -

depends on the game i guess. i bought TF2 but i probably wouldn't buy a call of duty game if it didn't have single player

Avatar image for pillclinton
#13 Posted by PillClinton (3580 posts) -

I bought Battlefield 3 at full price (reluctantly) with no intention of touching the single player, so yes (again reluctantly).

Avatar image for klei
#14 Posted by Klei (1798 posts) -

I'd rather get a good SP shooter than an MP one. Why? Because the SP stays good for as long as the game exists. 90% of MP games die within one to five years and gets their servers shut down.

Avatar image for jcramires
#15 Posted by JCRamires (19 posts) -

@PillClinton: What if EA said that the next Battlefield game will come out without SP and the price will still be the same?

Avatar image for beachthunder
#16 Posted by BeachThunder (14650 posts) -

Well, I have 0 interest in MP FPSs, so that would be a pretty big bummer. Although it seems a like a number of games are going the opposite direction and heading towards single-player only (ie. Bioshock Infinite and Metro: LL both announcing that they won't have any multiplayer at all.)

Avatar image for inevpatoria
#17 Posted by inevpatoria (7090 posts) -

I rarely buy first-person shooters on day one anymore regardless. So, no, I guess? By default?

Avatar image for flarephoenix
#18 Posted by FlarePhoenix (430 posts) -

@JCRamires said:

@doobie: How much did it cost back then?

Also, we didn't have a lot of those games years ago, now every single FPS game has a multiplayer mode.

@FlarePhoenix: Sure, some people get those games for the singleplayer campaign, but would you agree that they are a small percentage of the sales?

Possibly, I wouldn't be able to say for sure. However, I believe you're mistaken when you say nobody plays the single player campaigns, or that nobody would miss them if they were gone. I believe a lot of people play both, and a lot of people complain when a game offers up a lackluster single player campaign because the developer assumes everyone will get their fill of the game in the multiplayer.

Avatar image for spoonman671
#19 Posted by Spoonman671 (5800 posts) -
@FlarePhoenix said:

@JCRamires said:

@doobie: How much did it cost back then?

Also, we didn't have a lot of those games years ago, now every single FPS game has a multiplayer mode.

@FlarePhoenix: Sure, some people get those games for the singleplayer campaign, but would you agree that they are a small percentage of the sales?

Possibly, I wouldn't be able to say for sure. However, I believe you're mistaken when you say nobody plays the single player campaigns, or that nobody would miss them if they were gone. I believe a lot of people play both, and a lot of people complain when a game offers up a lackluster single player campaign because the developer assumes everyone will get their fill of the game in the multiplayer.

Agreed.
Avatar image for confusedowl
#20 Posted by ConfusedOwl (1162 posts) -

I would not. I'm a person who buys a game for it's singleplayer campaign exclusively. I've never had much of an interest in multiplayer shooters except Halo and even then I still buy the Halos for it's singleplayer.

Avatar image for jcramires
#21 Posted by JCRamires (19 posts) -

@FlarePhoenix: I didn't mean no one plays singleplayer FPSs in general, I meant those modern military FPSs where the focus is the MP mode. I, personally, don't buy those kind of games, in my country games cost WAY too much so I would never pay 200 bucks on a game that has 4 hours of singleplayer gameplay.

Avatar image for darthorange
#22 Edited by DarthOrange (4179 posts) -

I have a logic exam tomorrow and that first sentence made me smile. You argument is deductively valid although it is not sound. As for the question, I bought MAG for the PS3 and it is my favorite FPS that has come out so far. If the content there is worth $60 then it is ok for publishers to sell the game for $60.

Avatar image for loafsmooch
#23 Posted by Loafsmooch (545 posts) -

I couldn't care less for the SP. Shooting noobs in the face online is what's fun. I think it's bullshit that MP only games don't get to sell at full price. It's the MP that makes these games last for a long time.

Avatar image for viciousreiven
#24 Posted by ViciousReiven (977 posts) -

I buy shooters for both, I don't even touch the multi until I've finished the campaign, and I regularly replay campaigns. 
That being said I would buy a multiplayer only game if it provided enough multiplayer content to replace the campaign, so it'd probably have to have twice the maps the average COD or Battlefield game ships with, and perhaps some sort of co-op mode like the Special Ops or whatever they were called from MW2. 
 
Honestly though I'd rather have a nice long singleplayer only FPS with a lot of variety and none of the crappy tropes modern military shooters have brought in (moving at the speed of plot being the biggest offender).

Avatar image for flarephoenix
#25 Posted by FlarePhoenix (430 posts) -

I think it is an interesting question: did players start focusing on multiplayer more because the developers guided them that way, or did developers start focusing on multiplater more because that's what the players wanted?

Avatar image for pyromagnestir
#26 Posted by pyromagnestir (4470 posts) -

I wouldn't buy it at all, most like, as I usually get into multiplayer.

Avatar image for joseffthered
#27 Edited by joseffthered (101 posts) -

It really depends on the game. I bought Far Cry 2 and am going to buy Far Cry 3 solely for the single player experience. Same for the Bioshock franchise. But there are games where the single player is just a glorified tutorial getting you ready for the multiplayer, like Red Orchestra 2.

Edit: I forgot to answer your question. I would and do pay the 60$ price for amazing single player experiences without multiplayer, so I don't know why I wouldn't pay 60$ for an amazing multiplayer experience. (Which I guess I have with things like Wow and LotRO. Not FPS, but the same principle applies.)

Avatar image for tim_the_corsair
#28 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3053 posts) -

I would expect a comparatively large amount of content and quality, but yeah, I totally would.

It would have to be a great game though (TF2, for example) and not a piece of fluff like CoD

Avatar image for mikkaq
#29 Posted by MikkaQ (10296 posts) -

I've done this before many times. So yea. But it's gotta be really good like Quake 3, BF 1942 or Starsiege Tribes.

Come to think of it, I've yet to play ANY MP shooter that's better than those three games. But I guess you can't beat perfection.

Avatar image for crusader8463
#30 Posted by crusader8463 (14757 posts) -

No. TF2 is the only shooter I enjoy online and SP shooters have sucked for a long time.

Avatar image for gantrathor
#31 Posted by Gantrathor (298 posts) -

I would, if scrapping the singleplayer meant that the creators of the game would be making twice as many maps and modes, and that they would update it frequently. But this question has made me think of how cool it would be to have a singleplayer only, modern military FPS, with a great story and characters, and maybe more strategic gameplay than the average FPS these days. Someone send me a link to that game if it exists.

Avatar image for example1013
#32 Posted by Example1013 (4854 posts) -

Past call of duty I honestly don't play modern military shooters. Would I pay $60 for a call of duty game without single player? No. I do spend a lot of time on multiplayer, but I always go through the SP too, which I have found consistently enjoyable. If the SP were still included but bad, I still wouldn't want to pay $60. $40 is my price point for a MP-only release. I've paid that in the past and I would be willing to pay it in the future.

Avatar image for sirdesmond
#33 Posted by sirdesmond (1409 posts) -

I will gladly pay any amount of money that a game deserves. Battlefield 3 had a pretty crappy campaign that I barely touched, but I would still have gladly paid full price for just that game's multiplayer, because it's that good.

Avatar image for mrklorox
#34 Posted by MrKlorox (11142 posts) -

Depends on the game. I'd pay $60 for Battlefield 4 if it was multiplayer only. But I won't pay $25 or $30 for Chivalry or War Of The Roses without singleplayer.

Avatar image for giantstalker
#35 Posted by Giantstalker (2336 posts) -

I have paid almost 120$ on Battlefield 3, and none of that was for the single player experience whatsoever.

If the quality's there, it gets my cash. That's literally all that matters, single player or multiplayer. A half assed solo offering does not make me decide to buy a game with equally weak multiplayer, and the reverse is true also.

The product is defined by its strongest component, the rest is just chaff.

So the answer is yes.

Avatar image for ripelivejam
#36 Posted by ripelivejam (11256 posts) -

remember how exciting MW1's gameplay was the first time you heard about it? :(

Avatar image for dethfish
#37 Posted by Dethfish (3816 posts) -

I didn't play much of the MW3 campaign, but I put a ton of time into the multiplayer. So yeah, I probably would buy a full price mp only game, but it would have to have a good demo and be a great mp experience. I don't know if current cod style would cut it for me.

Avatar image for supamon
#38 Posted by supamon (1339 posts) -

Imagine MP only and with the next consoles's rising cost to games compared to FTP or cheaper price points like TF2 and CS:GO?

Pretty damn unlikely for me.

Avatar image for strainedeyes
#39 Posted by StrainedEyes (1365 posts) -

If it had enough Multiplayer content to justify $60, sure.

Avatar image for talksin
#40 Posted by Talksin (47 posts) -

i play a lot of fps, both single-player and multiplayer, especially COD and BF3 and i sure-as-shit would not pay full price for just MP.

Avatar image for doobie
#41 Posted by doobie (612 posts) -

@JCRamires said:

@doobie: How much did it cost back then?

Also, we didn't have a lot of those games years ago, now every single FPS game has a multiplayer mode.

@FlarePhoenix: Sure, some people get those games for the singleplayer campaign, but would you agree that they are a small percentage of the sales?

quake 3 arena was a full price game costing as much as Half Life 2 which also had a MP as did HalfLife and plenty of other FPS's back in the good old days

Avatar image for starvinggamer
#42 Posted by StarvingGamer (11399 posts) -

I only buy FPS games for the singleplayer.

Avatar image for firepaw
#43 Edited by Firepaw (3060 posts) -

No, I find that doubtful, if it had a persistent world where you could interact and construct/modify the world, then maybe. Planetside 2 with Minecraft-esque construction? It would have to be an MMO then probably.

Avatar image for slay3r1583
#44 Posted by Slay3r1583 (737 posts) -

I don't play multiplayer shooters anymore, hell I barely even play shooters at all. So I would never buy such a game no matter the price.

Avatar image for m_shini
#45 Posted by M_Shini (567 posts) -

I think most people even when they buy a game for the multiplayer a large portion of them still play the single player and get enjoyment out of it, i'd rather a price point be justified rather than just doing it in such an obvious way to spend less and earn more less they truly were putting all that SP money at the multiplayer, even then if i was interested in a multiplayer only fps i would wait it out for the price drop like allot of other games.

Avatar image for inkerman
#46 Posted by inkerman (1493 posts) -

Fuck no, I consider a game a mostly a singleplayer game unless it is totally and explicitly a multiplayer game. To me, almost in all cases, multiplayer is still an addon.

Avatar image for captain_felafel
#47 Posted by Captain_Felafel (1728 posts) -

Absolutely. If the multiplayer is good enough, flesh-out enough, then who's to say not shipping with a single player makes it somehow worth less than $60? I bought Battlefield 3 exclusively for its multiplayer, so its lackluster singleplayer just doesn't matter.

Avatar image for joey_ravn
#48 Posted by JoeyRavn (5227 posts) -

@JCRamires said:

No one buys those games because of their singleplayer campaign, everyone is in it for the multiplayer, so I got a couple of questions.

He. No. What a misguided assumption to make.

Avatar image for egg
#49 Posted by egg (1667 posts) -

Not if it's for handheld/Vita. For that, SP must be a major component. Actually I wonder if devs should even bother making online for the Vita. Few people own a Vita, and online rarely worked well on PSP.

Avatar image for mattyftm
#50 Edited by MattyFTM (14807 posts) -

I think you're greatly underestimating the number of people who buy those games for their single player. These single player campaigns take a lot of time, development resources and money. If no one bought the game for them, do you really think the publisher would put that much effort into creating them? The single player campaigns are a huge draw to those games for a lot of people. Sure, a few people just skip straight to the multiplayer. A few others just play the single player as a side thing. But for many, many people, the single player is the core experience of those games.

I'm making a lot of assumptions about people's playing styles here, but so are you. I suspect in reality, it's somewhere in the middle.

Moderator